Rev 16:18 suggests the earth is much older than Adam/Eve

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, NConly said:

The earth reserved unto fire I believe in as you.

The earth perished and God had to recreate it I do not believe that. 

It wasn't recreated, restored 

[NConly]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The earth was restored, not recreated, before God placed Adam on it.

I could be wrong in my thinking. I see it this way.

When I read @ Pet 3: 5

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

(This was before Adam and could have been when dinosaurs lived.)

(But I do not think it was 65 billion years ago more like 1 million at most.)

 

v 6 could have destroyed the dino's and all Land standing out of the water as in v 5.

when I read Gen 1: 2, 6-9

Gen 1:2

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

(In Gen v 2 we see no land standing out of the water like in 2 Pet 3:5 so what became waste, was all above the water shown in 2 Pet 3:5. In verse 2 thhe Spirit of Gos moved against the deep no land above water.)

Gen

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

In Gen 1:9 the dry land under the water that was shown i 2 Pet 3:5 appeared because God moved the water to show.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

[NConly]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

It wasn't recreated, restored 

right I agree I used the wrong words.

Edited January 3 by NConly
correction

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, NConly said:

I could be wrong in my thinking. I see it this way.

When I read @ Pet 3: 5

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:\

(This was before Adam and could have been when dinosaurs lived.)

(But I do not think it was 65 billion years ago more like 1 million at most.)

For me, the time gap isn't important.  By that, I mean the number of years.  What is obvious from the wording in the Hebrew of v.2 is that something did occur and the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, which God restored for  man's use.

So the only difference between this understanding and viewing Genesis 1 as being original creation is that Genesis 1 is about restoration vs being about creation.

The restoration view does no damage at all to any Scripture, changed no doctrines.

The restoration view fully recognizes God as Creator of the entire universe, by simply speaking all of it into existence in a moment.  That is a mighty power indeed. 

3 hours ago, NConly said:

when I read Gen 1: 2, 6-9

Gen 1:2

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The problem is that the Hebrew doesn't say what the English translations say.

Rather, "BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND".  This is supported by looking at how these words were translated elsewhere in the OT and that is how they were translated.

3 hours ago, NConly said:

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Yes, God's restoration was good.  Just as His original creation was good.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And he did.  And the mention of man is instructive.  Indicating that there is much more history to the earth than just 5 days.

Perhaps to you.  Not to most people.  Most people accept the Bible was written, rather than attempting to twist the language to insert beliefs that are not taught.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If earth was only 5 days only than Adam, there would have been NO NEED to even mention "man".  John would have written "since the earth was created.  Man's appearance would have been irrelevant.

Saying that mankind has never witnessed such earthquakes does not infer that they happened prior to man's existence.  That's simply more false doctrine.  You can have any opinion you want, but pronouncing that opinion as fact when it is not supported by Scripture is false teaching.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

v.2 says what it says, but you have chosen to believe silly English translations.  The Hebrew clearly shows differently.

I have confidence in people who have a greater knowledge of the language than you do; or rather the gap theory proponents you are quoting.  I believe that everything was created in its mature state including the earth.  That's what the text describes; as in trees bearing fruit and Adam being a full grown man.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Common descent means Adam was the first human.

Uuuhhhh... no.  Common descent means that all living things came from an original common progenitor.  This means that plants and animals have the same ancestor.  In other words, you share 25% of your DNA with a daffodil because you share ancestry.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And, that's the thing!  When we get to v.2, the earth is an uninhabitable wasteland, no light, heat, anything.  And unlivable.  So you are correct, nothing could live on the planet.  Which is why God restored the earth so man COULD live on it.  Totally logical.

How could God restore a planet He had just begun to create?  Remember, there was nothing else in the universe until the fourth day of creation.

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you still on about Ex 20:11?

What is unique about the Ten Commandments?

Hint.  They were actually carved by the hand of God onto stone tablets.  

The entire rest of the Bible was written by inspired authors.  The Ten Commandments were carved by the hand of God Himself.  In Exodus, God goes into greater detail to explain why the Sabbath is important.  Other verses quote the commandment but leave out the explanation.  There is a reason God told us why we are to honor the Sabbath.  God knew even then that one day people would teach that the 6 day creation could not have happened and did not happen.

[FreeGrace]

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps to you.  Not to most people.

How would you know that?

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Most people accept the Bible was written, rather than attempting to twist the language to insert beliefs that are not taught.

This sentence proves your extreme bias against reality.  You are STUCK on an English translation, and you IGNORE the actual Hebrew, as if the English is just good.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Saying that mankind has never witnessed such earthquakes does not infer that they happened prior to man's existence.

This isn't about what mankind witnessed.  The verse focuses on the fact that there have been no quakes as severe since man was on the earth.  That leave open the possibility that there WERE stronger quakes before man arrived.  And we know from Genesis 1 that God restored the earth 5 days before man arrived.  

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I have confidence in people who have a greater knowledge of the language than you do

You know very well that is untrue.  You have ignored/rejected the Greek and Hebrew experts who translated the Septuagint around 300 BC.  v.2 in that translation is:  BUT the earth was UNSIGHTLY and empty.  

Do you believe God creates unsightly things?

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

or rather the gap theory proponents you are quoting. 

Can you point to any 'proponent' that I quoted?  You know you can't because I never quoted any proponent.  I simply point out what the Hebrew says in other verses in the OT to understand its meaning in v.2.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I believe that everything was created in its mature state including the earth.

So do I.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's what the text describes; as in trees bearing fruit and Adam being a full grown man.

Right.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Common descent means that all living things came from an original common progenitor.  This means that plants and animals have the same ancestor.  In other words, you share 25% of your DNA with a daffodil because you share ancestry.

Maybe it's just not obvious to you, but EVERY living thing on this planet needs water, air and the chemicals of the ground.  That's what is common to all.  No big deal.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

How could God restore a planet He had just begun to create?

Your bias is biting you on the behind again.  He didn't "just begun to create".  His creation is stated in Gen 1:1.  v.  BUT the earth BECAME an UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND.  

Isa 45:18 says that "God did NOT create the earth tohu", but the English translation says that God created the earth tohu.  And you can't defend the contradiction.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Remember, there was nothing else in the universe until the fourth day of creation.

That would be your opinion.  The universe was fullly complete in v.1.  God spoke ALL of it ex nihilo.  But you continue to reject what happened to the earth.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

What is unique about the Ten Commandments?

Hint.  They were actually carved by the hand of God onto stone tablets.  

The entire rest of the Bible was written by inspired authors.  The Ten Commandments were carved by the hand of God Himself.  In Exodus, God goes into greater detail to explain why the Sabbath is important.  Other verses quote the commandment but leave out the explanation.

Again, your bias has totally blinded you to reality.  Ex 20 and the commandments describe the restoration, as I proved from the words used in Ex 20:11 vice Gen 1:1.

The very use of tohu wabohu in Gen 1:2 proves that God restored the planet, since the only other 2 times both words are used together are in passages that describe TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  

Why you keep ignoring or rejecting that fact is amazing.

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

  There is a reason God told us why we are to honor the Sabbath.  God knew even then that one day people would teach that the 6 day creation could not have happened and did not happen.

What nonsense.  Of course God knows everything and has ALWAYS known everything.  Like lazy English translators screwing up Gen 1:2 and teaching the universe is very young, in spite of the obvious reality.  

Your fight is with the Hebrew language, which refutes the English translation.  Good luck.

[RV_Wizard]

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

The verse focuses on the fact that there have been no quakes as severe since man was on the earth.  That leave open the possibility that there WERE stronger quakes before man arrived.

Why would there be?  It also doesn't mention giant purple moths that few in from outer space, which leaves the possibility that they came.

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you believe God creates unsightly things?

Have you been in  Walmart lately?

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Can you point to any 'proponent' that I quoted?

Bible commentator C. I. Scofield openly admitted his Reference Bible was trying to fit the Genesis creation account into modern evolutionary theory.  Learn more about the false doctrine you espouse here.

And from the same source, "But “laid waste” has a number of meanings in English. “laid” can mean “to put, or set down, to set in order” and “waste” can mean “anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilised”, “a sparsely settled or barren region”, “uncultivated land”, “a broad and empty expanse”, all of which reflect the original Hebrew meaning of bohuw – “emptiness, void, waste”. So we could just as easily interpret Gen 1:2 as saying “the earth was set down as barren”. In other words, the first stage of the creation of the earth was that of being an unformed mass of water waiting for God to form and fill it (Gen 1:2)."

You DID ask.

 

42 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe it's just not obvious to you, but EVERY living thing on this planet needs water, air and the chemicals of the ground.  That's what is common to all.  No big deal.

NO!!!  You do NOT get to re-define terms to fit your claims.  Common descent has NOTHING to do with the commonality of the elements which comprise  living organisms.  It is a theory of origins from a single plant/animal progenitor that evolved into all living things over billions of years.  It is diametrically opposed to the Biblical account of creation.  It is, in all truth, a Satanic lie.

The Kabbalah is an occult philosophy that questions everything about the Bible and then twists the Scriptures to “reveal” arcane knowledge and special “revelations”.  Kabbalah initiates study for years to learn its “ancient wisdom”. 

“The wisdom of Kabbalah has been connected to religion, mysticism, yoga, tarot cards, numerology, astrology, charms, amulets, magic and that a person must be at least 40 years of age in order to study.”

Your false doctrine had its origins with the occult.  Run from it.  

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How could God restore a planet He had just begun to create?  Remember, there was nothing else in the universe until the fourth day of creation.

Sure there was water in the beginning, and a earth that stood out from it no water, then in the water. After that God was hovering over the waters.

2 Peter 3

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Edited January 4 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would there be?  It also doesn't mention giant purple moths that few in from outer space, which leaves the possibility that they came.

Have you been in  Walmart lately?

Bible commentator C. I. Scofield openly admitted his Reference Bible was trying to fit the Genesis creation account into modern evolutionary theory.  Learn more about the false doctrine you espouse here.

And from the same source, "But “laid waste” has a number of meanings in English. “laid” can mean “to put, or set down, to set in order” and “waste” can mean “anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilised”, “a sparsely settled or barren region”, “uncultivated land”, “a broad and empty expanse”, all of which reflect the original Hebrew meaning of bohuw – “emptiness, void, waste”. So we could just as easily interpret Gen 1:2 as saying “the earth was set down as barren”. In other words, the first stage of the creation of the earth was that of being an unformed mass of water waiting for God to form and fill it (Gen 1:2)."

You DID ask.

 

NO!!!  You do NOT get to re-define terms to fit your claims.  Common descent has NOTHING to do with the commonality of the elements which comprise  living organisms.  It is a theory of origins from a single plant/animal progenitor that evolved into all living things over billions of years.  It is diametrically opposed to the Biblical account of creation.  It is, in all truth, a Satanic lie.

The Kabbalah is an occult philosophy that questions everything about the Bible and then twists the Scriptures to “reveal” arcane knowledge and special “revelations”.  Kabbalah initiates study for years to learn its “ancient wisdom”. 

“The wisdom of Kabbalah has been connected to religion, mysticism, yoga, tarot cards, numerology, astrology, charms, amulets, magic and that a person must be at least 40 years of age in order to study.”

Your false doctrine had its origins with the occult.  Run from it.  

I don't think there's any theory that has life starting with only one plant and animal.

Edited January 4 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would there be?  It also doesn't mention giant purple moths that few in from outer space, which leaves the possibility that they came.

So what?  All this is just irrelevant.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Do you believe God creates unsightly things?

Have you been in  Walmart lately?

It seems you have a comprehension problem with the word "create".  God did not create Walmart or the shoppers who go there.  He created 2 humans beings, who began to procreate, and approx 6,000 years of procreation, along with all sin caused things like birth defects (which God DID NOT create) we have what you see in Walmart today.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Can you point to any 'proponent' that I quoted?

Bible commentator C. I. Scofield openly admitted his Reference Bible was trying to fit the Genesis creation account into modern evolutionary theory.  Learn more about the false doctrine you espouse here.

And you continue to have a reading problem.  I asked for any proponent that I QUOTED, and you tell me who else agrees with my view.  Do you really not know the difference between those who agree with me and those I have QUOTED?

I have quoted NONE of those you mentioned, and NONE of those you left out.  Scofield was an idiot if he had said what you are quoting him as saying.  ANd I'm not interested in what others have to say about anything.  

I'm VERY INTERESTED in what the Bible SAYS, and I have gone to the original language to understand what the Bible MEANS.  Unlike yourself.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

And from the same source, "But “laid waste” has a number of meanings in English. “laid” can mean “to put, or set down, to set in order” and “waste” can mean “anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilised”, “a sparsely settled or barren region”, “uncultivated land”, “a broad and empty expanse”, all of which reflect the original Hebrew meaning of bohuw – “emptiness, void, waste”. So we could just as easily interpret Gen 1:2 as saying “the earth was set down as barren”. In other words, the first stage of the creation of the earth was that of being an unformed mass of water waiting for God to form and fill it (Gen 1:2)."

You DID ask.

And you didn't find ANY proponent that I quoted, because I NEVER quoted anyone.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

NO!!!  You do NOT get to re-define terms to fit your claims.  Common descent has NOTHING to do with the commonality of the elements which comprise  living organisms.  It is a theory of origins from a single plant/animal progenitor that evolved into all living things over billions of years.

Thanks for the honestyle of calling "common descent" a theory.  So much for that.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  It is diametrically opposed to the Biblical account of creation.  It is, in all truth, a Satanic lie.

Every "account" and "theory" that is opposed to the Biblical account of anything is from Satan.  I'll just bet he gets quite a chuckle when well meaning but misinformed YECs try to defend a young earth to scientists who know better.  Doesn't matter whether they believe in evolution or not.  And there are scientists who believe the earth is much older than Adam and reject the theory (satanic) of evolution.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Kabbalah is an occult philosophy that questions everything about the Bible and then twists the Scriptures to “reveal” arcane knowledge and special “revelations”.  Kabbalah initiates study for years to learn its “ancient wisdom”. 

You are dabbling in irrelevancy again.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

“The wisdom of Kabbalah has been connected to religion, mysticism, yoga, tarot cards, numerology, astrology, charms, amulets, magic and that a person must be at least 40 years of age in order to study.”

Just more irrelevancy.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your false doctrine had its origins with the occult.  Run from it.  

Since I have proven that the Hebrew words DON'T mean what Gen 1:2 says in the English, your comment is just WAY OFF BASE and totally irrelevant to the FACTS.

Of which you reject.

The Hebrew doesn't say what the English says.  But you are free to accept any other theory you would like to.